372 vs 440
- Thread starter SIRCHOPALOT
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Lobo, Have you actually ran all the saws in question? I have and have a significant amount of trigger time with the 440 and the 372. The 372 has more torque accross the board, as does the 346 vs. the 260. With Stihls antiquated cylinder design their motors simply do not have as much torque or HP despite what the numbers say. The 460 is a prime example of this. Althought the numbers indicate it would be faster than the 372 its simply not...
SIRCHOPALOT
ArboristSite Operative
I'll have to agree with ben on this one, as I just rebuilt and ported an old 031. it is so old that it has points for ignition. funny thing is the cylinder design is the same as the newer 026 that I have. it is hard for me to believe that in 30 years they couldn't make improvements in that design. to put it plainly the stihl cylinder design is a piece of crap. supposedly the 361 is better. I sure hope so.
SawTroll
Information Collector
OK then, so kw's and nm's in a Stihl saw is less capable than the same amount - at about the same rpm - in a Husky....bwalker said:
I can understand that a more modern motor design can respond better to the throttle and accelerate better, and that would make it faster in small wood (limbing etc)........
........but it still should not be any faster in the cut, once it is started.
Does your experience say anything about this small vs. bigger wood theory?
SIRCHOPALOT
ArboristSite Operative
I do know that the formula for horsepower is (rpm x torque) /5252.
so here is the deal. if the two saws have the same power rating it just means that is the peak power. it does not say anything about how wide the actual power is. one saw may make 5.4 hp at 12000, and the other may make 5.5 hp at 12000. the first saw may make 5 hp at 10,000, while the other makes only 4 h.p. even though the first saw doesn't quite make as much peak power It will still cut faster than the second saw.
so here is the deal. if the two saws have the same power rating it just means that is the peak power. it does not say anything about how wide the actual power is. one saw may make 5.4 hp at 12000, and the other may make 5.5 hp at 12000. the first saw may make 5 hp at 10,000, while the other makes only 4 h.p. even though the first saw doesn't quite make as much peak power It will still cut faster than the second saw.
SIRCHOPALOT
ArboristSite Operative
that is why different people like different saws. it is the same in racing, I can set one driver up with a 1,200 rpm power band and he can fly. but the next driver may be slow as molasses with the same motor, so I change the setup and get the second driver another 400 rpms of power band (ends up being a little less peak power) and all of a sudden he also gets fast. he wont be as fast as the first guy, because he either doesn't have the skills, or the talent. but he'll be competitive
SawTroll said:OK then, so kw's and nm's in a Stihl saw is less capable than the same amount - at about the same rpm - in a Husky....
I can understand that a more modern motor design can respond better to the throttle and accelerate better, and that would make it faster in small wood (limbing etc)........
........but it still should not be any faster in the cut, once it is started.
Does your experience say anything about this small vs. bigger wood theory?
I will buy the responsiveness theory up to a certain extent but not really because of piston desigh but more because of carburetion and air flow most likely, however if the measured torque was closer from one make to the other I could then even believe the torque band made a real difference, but the torque differential especially at a lower rpm with the 460 I think does not proove this and where torque leaves off, hp takes over and ithe 372 looses out at that level also.
SawTroll I have to agree torque is torque and hp is hp and both are calculated the same way no matter what the brand especially in such small displacements, however I would tend to agree presently that responsiveness would be better in smaller wood, but torque and hp would win out in big diameter wood.
SIRCHOPALOT
ArboristSite Operative
hp cannot be obtained without torque. for instance- a motor making 3 ft/lbs of torque at 9,000 rpm is 5.14 hp, if the same motor still makes only 3 ft/lbs at 12500 rpm it is 7.14 hp. but if amotor makes 1 ft/lb at 9,000 (1.71 hp) and 4 ft/lb at 12500 (9.5 hp). it will have more peak power, but it will also accelerate slower. it goes hand in hand.
SIRCHOPALOT said:
I agree, which is what i was pointing out about the husky reponsiveness in smaller timber. Do not remember on small 2 cycles but on the larger power plants such as diesels if you overlay the torque and power curves your hp does not really pick up until you reach peak torque.
I am not talking about the old Detroit Diesel 2 stroke jokes here by the way.
treeclimber jul
ArboristSite Operative
I have a 440 and I just installed a 20" bar on it. The thing flat out smokes through wood, also I love the air filter on the 440. But then the last husky I had was a old 39 and every thing was trashed. My vote goes to the Stihl, but thats only one man's opinion.
You are making the assumption that the numbers are correct. From what i have seen with dynos its very difficult to get true numbers an even then its not uncommon for a lower rated motor to best a higher rated one. In short I think these so called tests are a bunch of rubbish.
And as I have said before I have alot of trigger time on a ms 440 and own two 372's. There is no doubt in my mind which one is faster( in any size wood) and I am not talking about sound, vibration or any thing else besides cut speed.
SIRCHOPALOT
ArboristSite Operative
I just ran the 372 I bought , I also did a complete teardown and muffler mod. there is no comparison to the 044. the 372 is much better to run and it is much better built. (cyl design, piston design, carb and air filter design) to name a few.
SawTroll
Information Collector
....I buy that, no problem - in fact I was fully aware of it when I posted. I don't think it has much relevance in this case, though, as the torque curve between max output and max torque is not that different - even though the Stihl has a slightly wider power-band.SIRCHOPALOT said:
The only explanation I can think of, is that the Stihl's torque falls off a lot quicker above the max output rpm. But again, this will only be relevant in small wood........
SawTroll
Information Collector
That could of course be the explanation..........if "rated" in this case is the true numbers (which in that case will be impossible to obtain), and not what the factory states.......bwalker said:
................does anyone support that theory?
I have a very difficult time believing that the engineers behind the product, the model and its ratings are misleading everyone with the published ratings as it would be against their professional code.
Ben not saying your 372 is not faster, I am saying here that in such a small displacement it is not due to piston and cylinder design, at least not alone anyways. I would tend to believe far more in carb and air flow.
From my past work, I do know that as technology advances most competitive company's adopt it when their current model runs and productions have attained their targeted number and goals. I think you may be looking at saws with different intend usage in mind when conceived.
Ben not saying your 372 is not faster, I am saying here that in such a small displacement it is not due to piston and cylinder design, at least not alone anyways. I would tend to believe far more in carb and air flow.
From my past work, I do know that as technology advances most competitive company's adopt it when their current model runs and productions have attained their targeted number and goals. I think you may be looking at saws with different intend usage in mind when conceived.
SawTroll
Information Collector
DLG-test vs. "factory ratings"
I have read a lot of these DLG tests, and compared their findings to the rating published by the manufacturers.
If memory serves me about 75% of the tested models perform as stated, measured in kw, rounded off to one decimal. "Factory" torque ratings are difficult to find, so I have not looked much into that.
Of the remaining about 25%, most are "off" by +/- .1 kw. I have seen only a handful that were "off" by +/- .2 kw, and none that was "off" by more than that.
There is no trend as to which brand(s) of saws that are "off", and in which direction. Most of the tested Saws are Husky, Jred, Stihl or Dolmar + a few Emak products. There might be a reason that not all brands submit their saws to these tests.........
This mean that my findings support Lobo in his assumption, that the manufacturers does not publish "bogus" ratings by purpose.
Weight statements is another story, though.
I have read a lot of these DLG tests, and compared their findings to the rating published by the manufacturers.
If memory serves me about 75% of the tested models perform as stated, measured in kw, rounded off to one decimal. "Factory" torque ratings are difficult to find, so I have not looked much into that.
Of the remaining about 25%, most are "off" by +/- .1 kw. I have seen only a handful that were "off" by +/- .2 kw, and none that was "off" by more than that.
There is no trend as to which brand(s) of saws that are "off", and in which direction. Most of the tested Saws are Husky, Jred, Stihl or Dolmar + a few Emak products. There might be a reason that not all brands submit their saws to these tests.........
This mean that my findings support Lobo in his assumption, that the manufacturers does not publish "bogus" ratings by purpose.
Weight statements is another story, though.
For the umpteenth time. The MS 440 does not have a wider powercurve than the husky 372.
Lobo., you dont have a clue what your talking about. Cylinder design is very important if not the most important design parameter.
BTW in regards to OEM and engineers honesty. Are you aware that a few years ago Ford got in a lot of hot water for advertising bogus HP ratings?
bwalker said:
Ben I spent many years in the automotive industry, in general I would tend to agree with you but not on such small displacement engines. I will leave it at that and agree that we disagree to a certain extent on the subject.
Before retiring the company I worked for had 80 plants located around the world including 10 in the U.S and in countries such as Germany, Italy, Sweden, England, France, Spain, Brazil, Argentina etc., I had the opportunity to work with plant or product specialty engineers from many countries and I do know that what happened at Ford would not have happened in many the other countries mentionned.
In North America our corporate marketing departments stretch things to its very limits as seen with Ford, the corporate marketing gurus often override all other aspects to make more of those almighty dollars, (here we are the kings of hype, flash, glitter, camouflaging and stretching) My experience and work with many countries abroad thought me it was not the case because of their philosophies and ethics for one and the legal implications in many of those countries.
Last edited:
